🚀 go-pugleaf

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>No, simply that no one be arrested until the police have _some_
>evidence of guilt. Sobriety check points stop everyone, without
>any evidence of their guilt, and require them to prove their
>innocence.

Basically, we as a society have built and paid for those roads, and
we've said that you have to be ready to prove that you're not
intoxicated if you want to drive your vehicle on them.  It's as simple
as that.

>Do you feel the same way about mandatory drug test for everyone? Certainly
>the principle is the same.

A mandatory drug test for everyone would certainly be a violation of
your rights...  This isn't mandatory.  You don't have to drive, and
has been stated many times, that's *not* violating your right to free
travel.

>Malicious intent is, essentially, the definition of a felony. Are

Wrong here.  You don't have to be *trying* to hurt someone to commit
a felony.  Good thing, too.  Otherwise you'll end up with idiotic
laws like Wyoming, which last I heard had a maximum penalty of 1 year
for vehicular manslaughter involving alcohol.  Found this out at
a Michelle Shocked concert... she had a friend whose mother was killed
by a severely intoxicated driver.  The driver had just gotten out of
jail a short time before... for killing someone while driving drunk.
He was sent back to jail, for another 1 year sentence.  He wasn't
out to hurt anybody - I doubt he hopped into his car thinking "boy,
I'm gonna nail somebody tonight!"  So, should we make sure he doesn't
get any really nasty penalties?

>Am I the only one bothered by this attitude of, "the loss of freedom
>seems worth it to me" and (by implication), "I don't care about anyone
>who's values on the subject disagree with mine or the majority's."

I sure am.  It presupposes that any of this is a violation of your
rights, and I'm certainly not willing to make that assumption.  No
one has yet shown that operating a private vehicle on public roads is a
right.

					-Robert.-